MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4235392953 · doi:10.1002/net.20258

Collection depots facility location problems in trees

2008· article· en· W4235392953 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNetworks · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFacility Location and Emergency Management
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFacility location problemCenter (category theory)GeneralizationComputer scienceSet (abstract data type)Mathematical optimizationTree (set theory)Time complexityMathematicsOperations researchCombinatoricsAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We consider a generalization of the median and center facility location problem called the collection depots facility location (CDFL) problem. We are given a set of client locations and a set of collection depots and we are required to find the placement for a certain number of facilities, so that the cost of dispatching a vehicle from a facility, to a client, to a collection depot, and back, is optimized for all clients. The CDFL center problem minimizes the cost of the most expensive vehicle tour among all clients, and the CDFL median problem minimizes the sum of the tour costs for all clients. We provide the first polynomial time algorithms to solve the 1 and k median problems in trees with time complexities O ( n log n ) and O ( k n 3 ), respectively, where n is the number of vertices in the tree. In contrast, a restricted version of the k ‐median problem, where clients are given lists of allowed collection depots, is NP‐complete even for star graphs. We also give an optimal linear time algorithm to solve the discrete and continuous weighted 1‐center problem, improving on the O ( n log n ) result of Tamir and Halman [Discrete Optimization 2(2005), 168–184]. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. NETWORKS, 2009

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.321
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.178 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it